Egg first? Or chicken first?
-
You are so cute. Kids like you deserve a hug.Originally posted by popikachu:without chicken, there is no egg...
without egg, there is no chicken...
so chiken first or egg first? there is only one thing that come first...
my guess i egg
life of a chickken.
egg>hatch>growup>chicken...
chicken grow from an egg but egg dont grow from a chicken!!!
then you might ask "then where does the egg come when no chicken produce it?"
the egg MIGHT NOT come from a chicken... it may come from other things...
one example is the goldfish... anyone know how a goldfish come?
here the story..
long long time ago... a scientist mixes alot of fish together in a fish tank... the fish are of different species...
but one day, he found out that he had a new fish inside this fish tanks...
it is a fisg that is golden-like in colour... then he name it as 'gold fish'
this is how to goldfish come... so a goldfish MIGHT NOT need a mother goldfish to birth a baby gold fish.
k i know there this is not proven since even scienctist cannot comfirm but this is just my view...
anyone got any more views?
-
Very cool answer.Originally posted by Rynax:I shall give you my friends answer. Chicken came first. In fact, 2 chicken came 1st a male and a female. If only one chicken came 1st e.g female, no male to fertilise the eggs. so even if it lays a thousand more eggs, there will still only be 1 chicken. And male chickens cant lay eggs can they ? And if the egg came 1st, It will grow to a chicken and the whole reasoning of 1 chicken can't fertelise itself can it ?
But i found a loophole.
An egg can sometimes hatch to bring forth 2 chicks. I think it happens. Just like twins. So maybe an egg with 2 chicks hatched, 1 male, 1 female.
Anyway that's just speculation. But i have to say your friend's answer is very simple and witty. -
Your answer is very flawed.Originally posted by Classyfied:chicken came first la...why? cheeken ish evolved from other animals...juz like us...we evolved from monkeys...so the cheeken evolve *100 until one day...the first ceekens lay eggs and the chain cycle continues..ps the egg u see now is not the egg they first laid...i suppose the egg they first laid is suppose to be soft and without a shell one de no protection ...then time pass..slowly turn hard due to nature nid to protect itself ..till until now lor..buai buai..i very sleepy i go sleep..i also dun know wad i saying.s
Nothing against evolution, but if the chicken evolved *100, why did it stop?
If man came from monkeys, why don't monkeys continue to evolve?
Anyway, just humour. Don't take it too personally. -
Identical twins is due to a single fertilized zygote splitting into two separate embryos...So an egg cannot hatch 2 chicks. In human context, what you see intracellular is actually 2 embryos, if you wanna talk in chicken egg term = 2 eggs.Originally posted by LetterboxMind:Very cool answer.
But i found a loophole.
An egg can sometimes hatch to bring forth 2 chicks. I think it happens. Just like twins. So maybe an egg with 2 chicks hatched, 1 male, 1 female.
Anyway that's just speculation. But i have to say your friend's answer is very simple and witty. -
Cystaire (Voltaire?) is correct, it is irrational to draw an example using typewriter having 50bases which means higher permutation as compared to DNA, which has only 4bases.Originally posted by Arbitrageur:Those evidences are not conclusive and never will be.
When we ponder where a watch comes from, we think of the watch maker and do not doubt that it is a creation.
If the watch cannot be a product of evolution, what makes you think that a monomer had evolved to apes and then to the human kind?
Why is it so difficult for evolutionist to believe in a creator God?
“For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that unless I believe, I shall not understand.”
In fact, mathematical probability cannot come into play for there are many factors to consider such as environment factors, chemical, physical and infection caused by viruses that incorporate their DNA into your, additionally, there are also mutation due to DNA replication, faulty DNA repair, ionizing radiation, and other various causes.
Moreover, sexual reproduction further increases genetic diversity and changes in gene expression. Then, you still have Natural Selection to consider. In short, evolution is far more complicated than the maths you have drafted out. If you have to, you have to input more complex variables in order to compute out the statistical probability you wish to know.
As for the watchmaker analogy, something creationist loves using, but sadly it does have its flaw:
Paley's watchmaker analogy states the following:
1. A watch is complex
2. A watch has an intelligent designer
3. Life is complex
4. Therefore, life also has an intelligent designer
Sounds logical? Then, let me introduce you to another analogy:
1. Electric current in my house consists of a flow of electrons
2. Electric current comes from the power company
3. Lightning consists of a flow of electrons
4. Therefore, lightning comes from the power company
I hope you know what i am driving at, for standing by the watchmaker analogy does not constitute any strong evidence that life must comes from an intelligent designer.
The problem does not lies with evolutionist, for there are strong empirical data to support evolution. But how is creationist going to support creation? By using analogies with flaws and pseudo-science? I wouldn't even wanna mention about young earth creation movement. They're absolutely out of their mind. If the world follows their doctrine, we have to forgo all the science principles, laws, theories that have rationally explained our natural world. Intellectual suicide i say.
Why would God wants us to forgo our intellectual capability just so we can defend His existence by abiding to creation - something taken literally from the bible which is supposed to be poetic and more concern on spiritual truths than scientific facts? Bible is not a high school biology textbook, for it does not concern with scientific facts but more on word of God.
It is like believing that magic is real because Harry Potter books has them while in fact Harry Potter books are not meant as an educational, but rather for entertainment purposes - fiction.
Evolution is the way to go, and Creation is inhibiting the progression of science, tarnishing the reputation of our religion.
I am an evolutionist, yet i believe in God. How so? Look at the bigger picture - theistic evolution is possible - why not? God is outside time and space, because he created the Universe. Hence God is not governed by time. To us, 4.5billions of years is exceedingly huge amount of time, to God, it is merely like a second, or even less than that. So, it seems Creation to God, because it happens in a split second, but to us, it does not seems like it is creation - more like evolution. Sounds reasonable?
2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
For God is still in the picture, because no one can explains what comes before Big Bang. And well, this is my belief then, that God created the universe by big bang.
In case you doubt my stand, Francis Collins - the head of the Human Genome Project, is a believer of God and Evolution.
If you have the time, go look for his book - Language of God. It is about believing in God yet not undergoing intellectual suicide. -
Well-constructed argument!Originally posted by AugoeideS:Cystaire (Voltaire?) is correct, it is irrational to draw an example using typewriter having 50bases which means higher permutation as compared to DNA, which has only 4bases.
In fact, mathematical probability cannot come into play for there are many factors to consider such as environment factors, chemical, physical and infection caused by viruses that incorporate their DNA into your, additionally, there are also mutation due to DNA replication, faulty DNA repair, ionizing radiation, and other various causes.
Moreover, sexual reproduction further increases genetic diversity and changes in gene expression. Then, you still have Natural Selection to consider. In short, evolution is far more complicated than the maths you have drafted out. If you have to, you have to input more complex variables in order to compute out the statistical probability you wish to know.
As for the watchmaker analogy, something creationist loves using, but sadly it does have its flaw:
Paley's watchmaker analogy states the following:
1. A watch is complex
2. A watch has an intelligent designer
3. Life is complex
4. Therefore, life also has an intelligent designer
Sounds logical? Then, let me introduce you to another analogy:
1. Electric current in my house consists of a flow of electrons
2. Electric current comes from the power company
3. Lightning consists of a flow of electrons
4. Therefore, lightning comes from the power company
I hope you know what i am driving at, for standing by the watchmaker analogy does not constitute any strong evidence that life must comes from an intelligent designer.
The problem does not lies with evolutionist, for there are strong empirical data to support evolution. But how is creationist going to support creation? By using analogies with flaws and pseudo-science? I wouldn't even wanna mention about young earth creation movement. They're absolutely out of their mind. If the world follows their doctrine, we have to forgo all the science principles, laws, theories that have rationally explained our natural world. Intellectual suicide i say.
Why would God wants us to forgo our intellectual capability just so we can defend His existence by abiding to creation - something taken literally from the bible which is supposed to be poetic and more concern on spiritual truths than scientific facts? Bible is not a high school biology textbook, for it does not concern with scientific facts but more on word of God.
It is like believing that magic is real because Harry Potter books has them while in fact Harry Potter books are not meant as an educational, but rather for entertainment purposes - fiction.
Evolution is the way to go, and Creation is inhibiting the progression of science, tarnishing the reputation of our religion.
I am an evolutionist, yet i believe in God. How so? Look at the bigger picture - theistic evolution is possible - why not? God is outside time and space, because he created the Universe. Hence God is not governed by time. To us, 4.5billions of years is exceedingly huge amount of time, to God, it is merely like a second, or even less than that. So, it seems Creation to God, because it happens in a split second, but to us, it does not seems like it is creation - more like evolution. Sounds reasonable?
2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
For God is still in the picture, because no one can explains what comes before Big Bang. And well, this is my belief then, that God created the universe by big bang.
In case you doubt my stand, Francis Collins - the head of the Human Genome Project, is a believer of God and Evolution.
If you have the time, go look for his book - Language of God. It is about believing in God yet not undergoing intellectual suicide.
I agree with most of your points except that I am not a supporter of Francis Collins' views.
As St. Thomas Aquinas would say -
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
Unfortunately a well-reasoned argument like yours is unlikely to be understood by the opponents of modern biology, let alone appreciated.
Which is why I personally believe that a single diffuse parable is more effective than 1000 clearly reasoned arguments.
Hence this thread:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=230493
Cheers! -
Chicken came first, as mentioned, two chicken one male and one female were created by God in the first place. There is a God don't you think so? where does God comes from? we won't know. Say already He's God, He can appear and dissapear anytime, God mah? evolution theory is crap, if men evolved from monkeys then why are we seeing monkeys in the zoo? aren't we suppose to put them in the lab or something cause they're our great great ancestors? Big bang theory also crap, should there be atom that caused the cosmic accident who created the atom in the first place? thought bout it? crash two lousy car and get a ferrari? that's what u say, does it make sense? i don't think so =D
-
chicken use some common sense can?if no chicken how to lay eggs.if you say the eggs comes first then last time the whole earth is filled with eggs and the starts to crack and all the animals pop out of the egg?
-
The bible can never be compared with the biology text book, you're right but think about it, should everything be explained through physics, chem or bio what's behind everything? the last thing that God wants is for us to redirect His creation into evolution or anything man made, since you say you believe in God also look at this ->Originally posted by AugoeideS:Cystaire (Voltaire?) is correct, it is irrational to draw an example using typewriter having 50bases which means higher permutation as compared to DNA, which has only 4bases.
In fact, mathematical probability cannot come into play for there are many factors to consider such as environment factors, chemical, physical and infection caused by viruses that incorporate their DNA into your, additionally, there are also mutation due to DNA replication, faulty DNA repair, ionizing radiation, and other various causes.
Moreover, sexual reproduction further increases genetic diversity and changes in gene expression. Then, you still have Natural Selection to consider. In short, evolution is far more complicated than the maths you have drafted out. If you have to, you have to input more complex variables in order to compute out the statistical probability you wish to know.
As for the watchmaker analogy, something creationist loves using, but sadly it does have its flaw:
Paley's watchmaker analogy states the following:
1. A watch is complex
2. A watch has an intelligent designer
3. Life is complex
4. Therefore, life also has an intelligent designer
Sounds logical? Then, let me introduce you to another analogy:
1. Electric current in my house consists of a flow of electrons
2. Electric current comes from the power company
3. Lightning consists of a flow of electrons
4. Therefore, lightning comes from the power company
I hope you know what i am driving at, for standing by the watchmaker analogy does not constitute any strong evidence that life must comes from an intelligent designer.
The problem does not lies with evolutionist, for there are strong empirical data to support evolution. But how is creationist going to support creation? By using analogies with flaws and pseudo-science? I wouldn't even wanna mention about young earth creation movement. They're absolutely out of their mind. If the world follows their doctrine, we have to forgo all the science principles, laws, theories that have rationally explained our natural world. Intellectual suicide i say.
Why would God wants us to forgo our intellectual capability just so we can defend His existence by abiding to creation - something taken literally from the bible which is supposed to be poetic and more concern on spiritual truths than scientific facts? Bible is not a high school biology textbook, for it does not concern with scientific facts but more on word of God.
It is like believing that magic is real because Harry Potter books has them while in fact Harry Potter books are not meant as an educational, but rather for entertainment purposes - fiction.
Evolution is the way to go, and Creation is inhibiting the progression of science, tarnishing the reputation of our religion.
I am an evolutionist, yet i believe in God. How so? Look at the bigger picture - theistic evolution is possible - why not? God is outside time and space, because he created the Universe. Hence God is not governed by time. To us, 4.5billions of years is exceedingly huge amount of time, to God, it is merely like a second, or even less than that. So, it seems Creation to God, because it happens in a split second, but to us, it does not seems like it is creation - more like evolution. Sounds reasonable?
2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
For God is still in the picture, because no one can explains what comes before Big Bang. And well, this is my belief then, that God created the universe by big bang.
In case you doubt my stand, Francis Collins - the head of the Human Genome Project, is a believer of God and Evolution.
If you have the time, go look for his book - Language of God. It is about believing in God yet not undergoing intellectual suicide.
Colossians 1:16-17 (NKJV)16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. All things are created through him, not to be contained by some man-made theories, and all things are created for Him, we are created by God for God isn't it sad to see your own child making up some theories that snuff out the existence of you? -
Originally posted by alex_chfx:
I'm appalled by your attempt to undermine God's capability. You are just being short-sighted. What makes you think that God's way of Creation is through literal Creation itself? God is almighty - do you think evolution is a difficult job for God to create humans? As i said, times over and over again. Do not ever, ever, ever, put time as a measure. Because, God is OUTSIDE time and space. For he created the universe, and everything in it. Therefore, he created us, technically. The mechanisms may be different, but he created us, not through literal creation, but evolution.
The bible can never be compared with the biology text book, you're right but think about it, should everything be explained through physics, chem or bio what's behind everything? the last thing that God wants is for us to redirect His creation into evolution or anything man made, since you say you believe in God also look at this ->
Colossians 1:16-17 (NKJV)16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. [b]All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. All things are created through him, not to be contained by some man-made theories, and all things are created for Him, we are created by God for God isn't it sad to see your own child making up some theories that snuff out the existence of you?
[/b]
You failed to catch my point about time. If you think God can't create human through evolution, then you are doubting His power. If you agreed with me that the Bible is not anywhere better explaining scientific facts regarding Origin of Life, then why are you still quoting from the Bible in regards to creation?
As i have said over and over again, the Bible serves the purpose of spreading the word of God, very accurately, for there is no other book capable of that. But it is not intended to teach about scientific facts.
God gave us intelligent brain to think, to judge, to reason, to gain knowledge and appreciation of our world. If you think that being scientifically smart is a threat to God, then you are really doubting God's capability. For Science do not conflict with God. Science is explaining our natural world by observing and conducting experiment in regards to the natural laws of the universe. God is not subjected to the natural laws for he resides outside the Universe. So what is the hooha about disowning God when science do not seek to disown or disprove his existence? It can't be done in the first place!
Take some time to think out of the box and stop trying to put Him into our context.
Evolution does not put God out of the picture, you people think that evolution snuff out His part to play, because it seems too random and not entirely directed. As i said again and again, evolution may seems to be a pretty long time to us, it is not, however, necessary the case for God because he is outside time. In addition, we may not see his inner workings for what may seem to be random to us may not be to God.
If you dread Science that much, if you loathe what Science has given us, then i plead you, to shut off your PC now, throw it off your window, and live in a cave, or something. Thank you. -
I am amused by how you perceived Big Bang and Evolution as. Not to sound mean, but from this post i can see that you are entirely clueless about the Evolution theory and how it works, in addition, you failed to understand the Bigbang theory as well.Originally posted by alex_chfx:Chicken came first, as mentioned, two chicken one male and one female were created by God in the first place. There is a God don't you think so? where does God comes from? we won't know. Say already He's God, He can appear and dissapear anytime, God mah? evolution theory is crap, if men evolved from monkeys then why are we seeing monkeys in the zoo? aren't we suppose to put them in the lab or something cause they're our great great ancestors? Big bang theory also crap, should there be atom that caused the cosmic accident who created the atom in the first place? thought bout it? crash two lousy car and get a ferrari? that's what u say, does it make sense? i don't think so =D
I say that you give Evolution as serious look before saying that monkeys in the zoo are our ancestors. The darn monkeys you see in the ZOO is not our ancestor, they evolved from a common ancestor as well. And correction, we are more related to ape, not the darn monkeys you see in the ZOO.
If you are seriously doubting evolution, then explain to me why do we have vestigial organs such as the appendix, coccyx, wisdom tooth? Put there so we can have appendicitis, or pluck them out when we are feeling extreme pain in our jaws? Fun right? Geez.
Big Bang theory is based on the thermodynamic law, more precisely the 2nd law. The universe is ever expanding, but when entropy is at the least minimum, it starts off at one single point - the singularity, a concentrated ball of highly intense energy and matter call the Big Bang.
Someone may be more well versed in the concept of Big Bang, for i am not adept in physics but at least i do give you something to think about Big Bang, it is not just two car crashing to become Ferrari, if you meant about matter and antimatter collision, yes it does exist. Go read more about CERN, they have an entire structure dedicated to creation of antimatter. And you don't create atom out of the collison, all you have is pure energy. -
Thanks.Originally posted by Cystaire:Well-constructed argument!
I agree with most of your points except that I am not a supporter of Francis Collins' views.
As St. Thomas Aquinas would say -
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
Unfortunately a well-reasoned argument like yours is unlikely to be understood by the opponents of modern biology, let alone appreciated.
Which is why I personally believe that a single diffuse parable is more effective than 1000 clearly reasoned arguments.
Hence this thread:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=230493
Cheers!
I have to agree with you that sometimes parable would be very much better than reasoned arguments...which is pretty unfortunate. Seems to me like we are still living in biblical age where our mental cognition is still subpar and we have to explain things in parables. -
Jesus Christ first lo.
-
i again revive chiken or egg
i still haven get the answer!!!